Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I would think that both examples are protected. Unacceptable to most, but not illegal.

As to the second paragraph, if by "confront" you mean get violent I am going to say it's never acceptable to initiate violence in that circumstance. As long as their path isn't impeded they are not physically harmed, why can't someone legally say to them, "Go back to Saudi Arabia?" I may want to throw a punch but it would be wrong.

Exactly the so called victims were the bad guys in the train stabbing, the nazi was just exercising his free speech.

Cos in the case of Poland and Finland the commie didn't even start genocide. Stalin ruled Poland for nine years up to his death, and established a repressive regime, but he didn't commit genocide. Nobody even accuses him of genocide against defeated Finland in 1940. In the areas of Karelia he annexed, the Finnish population was given the choice of becoming Soviet citizens, or leaving, and virtually all of them took the second option.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Off the top of my head we've had women's suffrage, the Civil Rights amendment, end of segregation, end of prohibition against mixed race marriages, the ADA, the advancement of gay rights, and we're working on the end of prohibition of marijuana. I'm sure there are many others I've left out, but in general meaningful change can be enacted with democratic and/or diplomatic process and it's not always necessary to violate the civil rights of those who oppose progress.

Another false choice fallacy. There is a lot of space between "asking nicely" and violating someone's civil rights. For example the #metoo movement is wrecking the careers of many powerful people who would not have changed their behavior just by being asked nicely.

Violence is only justifiable in response to violence. When Yvette Felarca physically attacks someone who is merely standing with a sign, she becomes the oppressor. Even though her goal of "standing up to fascism" may be noble, she dirties her cause by using oppressive and regressive tactics.

And to be clear, she is not "standing up to fascism" by opposing the right of free speech.

^This.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Nobody here is defending Nazis

You're wasting your time, Mycroft. Too many people here believe that defending someone's right to free speech, a fundamental right, means agreeing with the person doing the speech. The poster in question thinks that arguing a semantic point about a term means you agree with the actions of the person who was labeled by the term. It's insane, but that's the level we've sunk to here.

Again I get that a lot of people have this hand wringing "Where do we draw the line" fetish for social discussions but I don't really care in this case.

I don't know either. But I know if we get to the point where Nazis have a place in the popular discourse.... we went to far. Go back and draw a line somewhere.

"Nazis having a place at the table" is well past whatever "line" we should be drawing.

Well that's the problem, isn't it? You've decided that Nazis shouldn't have a right to free speech, but admit that you don't know where to stop. Which groups are worthy of free speech? Those we agree with? Those whose ideas we don't find despicable? That's a pretty mighty slippery slope.

Besides, bad ideas are more easily dealt with in the light than in the darkness. Let them speak and then show why they're wrong.

The poster in question thinks that arguing a semantic point about a term means you agree with the actions of the person who was labeled by the term.

Yeah good thing nobody called them pedophiles.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Well that's the problem, isn't it? You've decided that Nazis shouldn't have a right to free speech, but admit that you don't know where to stop. Which groups are worthy of free speech? Those we agree with? Those whose ideas we don't find despicable? That's a pretty mighty slippery slope.

I'm just fundamentally against the whole "We can't draw an exact perfect line in the sand with nothing but pure good on one side, pure evil on the other, and absolutely no grey area therefore no standards ever can be applied to anything in any situation" mentality. Especially in a world where so many people have a try-hard edgelord fetish for trying to be as much of a douchenozzle as possible while staying technically in the rules. The courtesy of having flexible standards deserves the courtesy of not trying to game the system.

At what point does the rain become a flood? Define me the exact moment with no grey area. Can't do it? Well you're not allowed to evacuate when your house washes away.

Hopefully without bending the metaphor to its breaking point we don't have just slippery slopes and perfect flat plains. The world does have some actual legit slopes to it.

__________________"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

I'm just fundamentally against the whole "We can't draw an exact perfect line in the sand with nothing but pure good on one side, pure evil on the other, and absolutely no grey area therefore no standards ever can be applied to anything in any situation" mentality.

But doesn't Mycroft agree with you on this exactly? I mean, we all agree that Nazis are bad, and that at least some subgroups of Antifa are also bad, though perhaps not to the same degree. I think Mycroft's point is that we shouldn't refrain from pointing out Antifa's bad deeds just because their opponents are Nazis. And my point is that Nazis being bad and despicable doesn't mean that rights don't apply to them, so long as they don't break the law. It's unpleasant, but that's the price we pay to have these rights.

__________________"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Cos in the case of Poland and Finland the commie didn't even start genocide. Stalin ruled Poland for nine years up to his death, and established a repressive regime, but he didn't commit genocide. Nobody even accuses him of genocide against defeated Finland in 1940. In the areas of Karelia he annexed, the Finnish population was given the choice of becoming Soviet citizens, or leaving, and virtually all of them took the second option.

In the matter of genocide, Hitler was by far the more consistent performer, but Hitler wasn't a commie, so what's not to like about him, eh?

what a baffling comment. Hitler was a pure piker when it came to Stalin in the genocide game.

__________________"these autistics preferred to back a woman who aligns herself with white supremacy." These autistics.

He did quite a bit of that, but it wasn't uncommon, though it was certainly criminal. The Czechs did it in Sudetenland in and after 1945, and the Poles in Gdansk. But it's not customary to accuse these countries of Genocide, although what they did do was highly indefensible. This is true of Stalin's activities too.

All the more so in his case, as responsibility for Stalin's 1939 war on Finland is borne mainly by him, not by the Finns.

The post I was responding too. Clearing Finns out to replace them with Russians.

Nobody was "clearing Finns out to replace them with Russians." Like Craig said, they were all given the choice of becoming Soviet citizens equal with all other Soviet citizens. Just because many instead chose to move North into Finland doesn't make it ethnic cleansing. How's that ethnic cleansing?

__________________"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Nobody was "clearing Finns out to replace them with Russians." Like Craig said, they were all given the choice of becoming Soviet citizens equal with all other Soviet citizens. Just because many instead chose to move North into Finland doesn't make it ethnic cleansing. How's that ethnic cleansing?

Yes that's true. It wasn't ethnic cleansing, as the residents of the annexed territories were offered the opportunity to remain as Soviet citizens. Still less, of course, can offering people citizenship be equated with genocide.

In other areas Stalin did indeed, however, perpetrate ethnic cleansing; most notably against Volga Germans and Crimean Tatars. They were cleared from their lands and homes and transported to Kazakhstan and similar distant regions.

Not really. I see it just as another "OMG if we don't let Nazi's march in the streets where does it end?!" argument.

Here's my take on every possible version of it. It can stop at Nazis no longer marching in the streets.

That's sort of my take on most usage of the "If we do X where does it end" argument. We can do the one thing and just... stop. Everybody gets that right? We can, as a society and a culture, stop the bad people from doing something and then.... like NOT let that same argument be used against non-bad people. If we bring the hammer down on the Nazis Rally today somebody bringing the hammer down on the Kindly Grandma Knitting Club March isn't... a given. It doesn't have to happen. We can say no to one thing and yes to another. That's an option. And option that I think is being made waaaaaay harder and less likely than it is.

Calling arguments out for being "Slippery Slopes" in social and political topics so often has an air of apologetics for "Look at what you made me do" or self fulfilling prophecy style retorts.

I'm fairly certain we can draw a line somewhere before "Nazi Rallys in the Streets of America in 2018" that isn't going to send the country into either a totalitarian or anarchistic tipping point.

It's a larger scale version of the "Zero Tolerance Policies" that so many institutes put into place because making judgement decision is just too hard and nobody wants to be seen as committing the last and only sin that exist in our society, "being a hypocrite."

__________________"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

Not really. I see it just as another "OMG if we don't let Nazi's march in the streets where does it end?!" argument.

Here's my take on every possible version of it. It can stop at Nazis no longer marching in the streets.

That's sort of my take on most usage of the "If we do X where does it end" argument. We can do the one thing and just... stop.

Not really, no. Do you plan on making a specific exception to free speech laws for Nazis? How would you word that in a way that doesn't either A) allow for expansion to include things the government doesn't like or B) just allows Nazis to rebrand and do their thing anyway?

Quote:

If we bring the hammer down on the Nazis Rally today somebody bringing the hammer down on the Kindly Grandma Knitting Club March isn't... a given.

If you arbitrarily decide today to exclude a group, you can add another group tomorrow and another, and then you might find yourself part of one of those groups that someone who wields the hammer finds despicable for one reason or another. You've opened the door for this sort of thing.

Quote:

It doesn't have to happen.

No but it will.

Quote:

We can say no to one thing and yes to another. That's an option.

Who's "we"? Power changes hands all the time, and if the rules allow for exclusions to basic rights, then it's not hard to figure out what's going to happen.

I know you're trying to apply a more grounded, common sense approach to this rather than a rules lawyer version, but we know what happens when the rights of citizens aren't protected.

Not really, no. Do you plan on making a specific exception to free speech laws for Nazis? How would you word that in a way that doesn't either A) allow for expansion to include things the government doesn't like or B) just allows Nazis to rebrand and do their thing anyway?

Why not? I think people are thinking "free speech" is a lot less restricted than it is.

We made it so you can't shout fire in a crowded theater without it being made illegal to mention fire at all the next day. We have slander and libel laws and still have parody and gossip rags. We have designated (or at least widely agreed upon if you want to split hairs) hate groups. And I guarantee you when those restrictions were first suggested there was somebody hand wringing over "Where will it end?" then as well.

This isn't some crazy, newfangled idea that's never been tried. Restrictions have been made on free speech plenty of times before and it hasn't broken the 1st Amendment yet. We don't like to talk about it, but it's happened.

Now don't get me wrong this is, 100% no arguments, something we should be monumentally careful of. I don't want to give the impression that this is something I'm suggesting be done on anything even remotely resembling a "whim." And I get that the mere suggestion of anything even related to this is real easy to slap with the "totalitarian" label.

Yes of course some political douchenozzle in some level of power is going to try and misuse this but 1) they're going to do that whether it's used legitimately or not and 2) that's why we need an active, interested populace in place to stop them.

__________________"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

In other areas Stalin did indeed, however, perpetrate ethnic cleansing; most notably against Volga Germans and Crimean Tatars. They were cleared from their lands and homes and transported to Kazakhstan and similar distant regions.

Sure, but we were talking about Poland and Finland here. I'm just tired of those endless ahistorical liberal/"Anti-Stalinist" potshots.

__________________"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

There's groups that everybody pretty much agrees are bad. Like, radical example here, Nazis. Again "bad" as a label that society can put on something isn't this radical crazy idea.

At a certain point trotting out defense of "rights" only when the example is violent, racists, fascist extremists becomes a defacto defense of the group and not the rights.

Oh golly, I can think of lots of groups that have been considered "bad" over the years that I am certain that you would not consider bad.

And while I appreciate the suggestion that the ACLU's advocating on behalf of the Skokie Nazis was a defense of Nazis and not principles of free speech, that position has the twin benefits of both being wrong and an extreme minority position. Nevertheless I certainly would not stop anyone from expressing that opinion despite the fact that it is an objectively "bad" position.

__________________"these autistics preferred to back a woman who aligns herself with white supremacy." These autistics.

Why not? I think people are thinking "free speech" is a lot less restricted than it is.

What do you mean, why not? I've asked you how you'd word it to avoid these two problems.

Quote:

We made it so you can't shout fire in a crowded theater without it being made illegal to mention fire at all the next day. We have slander and libel laws and still have parody and gossip rags. We have designated (or at least widely agreed upon if you want to split hairs) hate groups. And I guarantee you when those restrictions were first suggested there was somebody hand wringing over "Where will it end?" then as well.

Nobody's saying that there are no limits to free speech. Usually, however, they don't consist of exceptions for particular opinions.

Quote:

Now don't get me wrong this is, 100% no arguments, something we should be monumentally careful of.

You know, with all this soaring rhetoric about free speech being bantered about, it would be great to have the OP parents weigh in. As they are indisposed, I would imagine they would caution against appeals to emotion and special pleading. I am sure they would say they would willingly die defending the Nazi's rights to be unmolested till they actually do something

Because they think it makes them look good to the liberal middle class and they're happy to misrepresent and falsify the history of the USSR to achieve that.

And of course they're not just Anti-Stalinist, they're just liberals with an empty flair of socialism around them, because even they (should) know very well that trying to postpone war with Nazi Germany (through for example the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) was the only rational course of action available to the USSR under the international conditions as they were at the time. So it doesn't even have anything to do with Stalin per se, the same would be just as true irrespective of whoever happened to be leading the USSR at the time. Nice use of the Great Man Theory of History in lieu of analyzing the material conditions though, that doesn't sound liberal at all, it's just so Marxism.

But who cares about accurate historical analysis of the context and conditions which led to the events as they transpired when all that one's going for is to have liberals go "Who's a good boy?!" after joining them in stupid ahistorical so-called "Anti-Stalinist" nonsense?

Oh,Uncle Joe is such a poor, misunderstood person.....

__________________Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Your stance still has Nazis marching in the street. It also still has problems it needs to address. My stance doesn't have to 100% airtight to be compared and contrasted in it.

It's "When the downside of the Nazis marching in the street outweighs the downside of what ever steps we take to stop them" just like every other value judgement a society or individual makes.

I disagree 100%. Nazis marching in the street is not a bug of my stance. It's a feature. Yes, despicable people have a voice under that system, but that's how you ensure that everyone else does. Your stance is the greater risk and leads more readily to a greater evil.

I disagree 100%. Nazis marching in the street is not a bug of my stance. It's a feature. Yes, despicable people have a voice under that system, but that's how you ensure that everyone else does. Your stance is the greater risk and leads more readily to a greater evil.

Agree to disagree (and I don't mean that to be snarky or dismissive, I respect this as just a base value judgement difference.)

__________________"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

Sure, but we were talking about Poland and Finland here. I'm just tired of those endless ahistorical liberal/"Anti-Stalinist" potshots.

Well in that case I advise you to have a lie down and a cup of tea until you recover from your tiredness. Were talking about Poland and Finland in relation to genocide and ethnic cleansing, so whether Stalin can be accused of suchlike misdeeds is relevant. I agree that in the case of ex-Finnish territories he can't be accused of these things.

Then somebody will come along and ask me if the reason I think Stalin wasn't guilty is because I believe he wasn't capable of such crimes; and I'm saying he was capable of ethnic cleansing, but he didn't initiate it in the case of the Finnish territories. He did it in Crimea, but not in Karelia.

How a statement like that can be described as "ahistorical" is beyond me.

I disagree 100%. Nazis marching in the street is not a bug of my stance. It's a feature. Yes, despicable people have a voice under that system, but that's how you ensure that everyone else does. Your stance is the greater risk and leads more readily to a greater evil.

Yes and they get to threaten jews because that is also a feature. Hopefully they jews in question will stand their ground and shoot the nazis. That is how this should work in America.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

How a statement like that can be described as "ahistorical" is beyond me.

I was talking about ponderingturtle's claim of "Clearing Finns out to replace them with Russians".

__________________"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Too vague. How about individuals, instead of groups? And how about individuals who propose doing illegal acts, just to be safe?

I thought the USA already proscribed membership to certain organisations? I was thinking of how that determination can be made. It seems sensible to me that groups that advocate the murder, and usually mass murder of fellow citizens should be on the current list.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.